Morality in PnP

[Walsingham]

No. i'm saying that you should choose the side that is losing. If you're drunk.

[metadigital]

Drunk-Good.

 

Drunk-Evil would commit random acts of violence against others.

[Walsingham]

Precisely, as my wifebeating example said. I personally am more 'hungry neutral'.

[Dark_Raven]

Drunk-Evil would commit random acts of violence against others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Darque]

Drunk is not an alignment

[Dark_Raven]

Its a state of well being.

[Jorian Drake]

Its a state of well being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

for the brewery

[DeathScepter]

Its a state of well being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

for the brewery

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

and the couragously stupid.

[Walsingham]

Drunk is not an alignment 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Drunk blatantly is an alignment. As illustrated.

[Darque]

Not in any PnP game.

[Rosbjerg]

party Drunks = teh c00l

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

that takes me back.. as the evening grew darker and the beers emptier .. the game just became better and better.. although a bit less coherent and much more confusing.. but hey - it was fun! ^_^

 

nothing like 5 lvl 15 people (of different allignment) starting arguing about stuff only to eventually turn on each other and lay ruin to whatever city (or area) they are in..

Edited January 3, 2007 by Rosbjerg

[Dark_Raven]

nothing like 5 lvl 15 people (of different allignment) starting arguing about stuff only to eventually turn on each other and lay ruin to whatever city (or area) they are in..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good times.

[Darque]

Or not.

[Rosbjerg]

what not to like about it?

[Dark_Raven]

It's awesomeness!

[Amentep]

Sadly those moral alignment "discussion" invariably happened at (a) low levels) and (b) in any situation where I'd get the short end of the stick regardless when I played PnP back in the day... :cry:

[Dark_Raven]

What are morals? One person insight is different from another's. One nations terrorist is another nations freedom fighter.

 

A different culture may view the killing of an enemy as honorable. Not to the killer but the victim. This culture may view surrender as a disgraceful, dishonorable thing to do to self and your people. Better to die by the sword than be another's prisoner. The Japanese Bushido code is similiar to this outlook if I am not mistaken.

[Darque]

What are morals?

 

the opinions of a majority about how things should be done.

[Dark_Raven]

Who is the majority? Who do they think they are to dictate their will on others?

 

Plus each culture, people have their own outlook to "morals".

 

*The wink smiley is missing?*

Edited January 31, 2007 by Dark_Raven

[Darque]

Nope, still there.

[213374U]

Who is the majority?

Those that are able to overcome the fallacies and pointlessness in moral relativism.

 

Who do they think they are to dictate their will on others?

Why, the majority, of course.

 

Plus each culture, people have their own outlook to "morals".

And are all cultures equal? Does a culture have an intrinsic value? How solid, developed, and most importantly (since morals provide the foundation for civilization), efficient are those diverse "outlooks"?

 

What is the purpose of morality; to provide welfare and ultimately happiness to its adherents, or just to ensure their survival, prosperity, and supremacy?

 

Even though I'm not really providing any insight into morality with those questions, I think they shed some light on why moral relativism isn't a valid standpoint in any discussion that hopes to progress in a way different than a m

Edited January 31, 2007 by 213374U

[Calson]

Even though I'm not really providing any insight into morality with those questions, I think they shed some light on why moral relativism isn't a valid standpoint in any discussion that hopes to progress in a way different than a m

[213374U]

The only way for a discussion on morality to progress in a way different to a m

[Calson]

That is a misrepresentation, I'm afraid, and one of the fallacies often used by proponents of moral relativism. I don't need people to agree 100% with my moral standards, since if that was the case, there would be no need to discuss anything to begin with.

 

There is a need of some common ground, however. The understanding that for humans to coexist and progress, there needs to be a set of rules by which all will play. The acknowledgment that for said set of rules to be laid out, compromises need to be made by all parts. And the implication that breaking those rules will bring consequences. That's all I can think of.

A set of rules does not equal a set of morals. Take any developed country in the world today, and while they all have laws, the laws do not define the morality of the populace. for example, here in the US, we have wars, abortion, gay marriage, global warming. These are all contentious issues, with people on both sides claiming the high moral ground. Both sides of each argument cannot be morally acceptable, as each claims the other is immoral. So which is correct? If the rule is created, and the law is passed, does that make one side morally correct?

 

I never said morality isn't relative. Much like language itself, it is a purely intellectual construct, abstract in nature, and as such, there is no direct relation between it and the real world. However, you prove with this statement that you don't truly realize the extent of moral relativism, and perhaps this is the reason you fail to see its uselessness (and hence, lack of validity as a theory). You say that some people will agree with what is good and what is evil, but in reality, good and evil are just words used to refer to abstract and ultimately variable ideas. In moral relativism, good and evil are purely circumstantial. It's not about shades of grey or moral dilemmas. It's about considering a completely alien and twisted moral code as "valid" as one's own. It is the ultimate expression of apathy.

Maybe it is the ultimate expression of understanding? To take the extreme example of alien and twisted: An alien race visits earth. They are intelligent, communicative, and females eat the males after insemination in a grotesque and agonizing manner. While, I may morally find this reprehensible in humans, who am I to condemn a whole race of creatures that have evolved in a way that seems wrong to me?

Good and evil are circumstantial. 2000 years ago, slavery was good. Today, it's bad. 200 years ago, women were second class citizens, and it was good. Today, that kind of thinking is bad, and you will get an earful for even mentioning it. 100 years ago, mentally handicapped children were locked up in basements or barns, as it was what you did with children who were obviously evil. Today, you'll go to prison for a very long time for trying that. In 500 years morals will have changed again due to what ever circumstances prevail at that time.

 

To really see moral relativity in action, try asking the following to various people:

Would you murder someone to save a thousand people?

Would you murder a really good person to save a thousand people?

Would you murder a really evil person to save a thousand people?

Would you murder someone with only a day to live to save a thousand people?

 

In my experience, only a few people will stick to their answer no matter what circumstance is presented, as long as the premise (kill x save y, y>x) remains the same. Most will be swayed by one factor or another.

 

 

Welcome to the boards, by the way.

 

Thank you.

[213374U]

A set of rules does not equal a set of morals. Take any developed country in the world today, and while they all have laws, the laws do not define the morality of the populace. for example, here in the US, we have wars, abortion, gay marriage, global warming. These are all contentious issues, with people on both sides claiming the high moral ground. Both sides of each argument cannot be morally acceptable, as each claims the other is immoral. So which is correct? If the rule is created, and the law is passed, does that make one side morally correct?

No, that's not what I meant. By a "set of rules" I implicitly meant a moral code. "Morality" is one of those important sounding words that stand for something much less grand and often simpler in concept. I wasn't talking about legality specifically either, as laws themselves (at least in a democracy) stem from the prevalent moral code in that society.

 

As for the examples you brought up, they don't really deal with moral relativism, or even with morality itself, since those are all discussions of details. Everyone will agree that killing a human being before it's born is wrong. The question in that particular issue is, when exactly does the embryo become a human being? The question of gay marriage is a question of semantics, mostly, as some feel that a same-sex union shouldn't appropriate for itself the name "marriage". Global warming? Well, the scientific community itself can't seem to agree about that. And as for wars... that probably deserves a thread of its own.

 

 

Maybe it is the ultimate expression of understanding?

No, not really. Does watching sunrise make you automatically understand how the Solar System works?

It is apathy because by claiming "respect" towards other moral outlooks that might be in direct conflict with yours equals to shrugging and walking off. It is also the easy and convenient thing to do when confronted with a situation that puts your integrity on the line. This brings up the point of the meaninglessness of integrity in moral relativism as well. A moral code is not something that just you will go by. It is something you believe in and will try to uphold regardless of circumstances. If you won't fight for your principles, what is there left to fight for?

 

 

To take the extreme example of alien and twisted: An alien race visits earth. They are intelligent, communicative, and females eat the males after insemination in a grotesque and agonizing manner. While, I may morally find this reprehensible in humans, who am I to condemn a whole race of creatures that have evolved in a way that seems wrong to me?

This is a flawed example. It's the same as proposing we have sharks be prosecuted for attacking and eating swimmers. Human moral codes are meant to apply only to humans, since as I said before, they are just a set of rules meant to ensure that mankind can ultimately progress as a whole.

 

But yes, regardless of all that, I wouldn't allow a female to devour a male in my jurisdiction, because under my standards, killing a sentient being for no good reason (you haven't stated that there is a biological or sociological need for this... just inertia) is wrong. Sentience entails being able to overcome and control one's bodily urges. But I digress.

 

 

Good and evil are circumstantial. 2000 years ago, slavery was good. Today, it's bad. 200 years ago, women were second class citizens, and it was good. Today, that kind of thinking is bad, and you will get an earful for even mentioning it. 100 years ago, mentally handicapped children were locked up in basements or barns, as it was what you did with children who were obviously evil. Today, you'll go to prison for a very long time for trying that. In 500 years morals will have changed again due to what ever circumstances prevail at that time.

Yes, stating the obvious is a central tenet of moral relativism. Unfortunately, it doesn't go much farther, so as to avoid being proven wrong in the future, maybe. Something that you don't define can't be wrong... but can't be right either. Therein lies the apathy of the theory.

 

Good and evil have changed through time, and will continue to change, but should that stop us from defining them? Mind you, I'm not debating that good and evil are arbitrary notions, entirely dependant upon the circumstances. What I dispute is the idea that because they are, they have no value and shouldn't be upheld to the best of one's ability. If we do not, it's chaos.

 

 

To really see moral relativity in action, try asking the following to various people:

Would you murder someone to save a thousand people?

Would you murder a really good person to save a thousand people?

Would you murder a really evil person to save a thousand people?

Would you murder someone with only a day to live to save a thousand people?

Those are moral dilemmas that have nothing to do with moral relativism, since they are internal conflicts within a given set of moral values, and they do not take other moral outlooks into consideration. Moral dilemmas predate by far the idea of moral relativism.

 

Sorry for for the rambling and possible incoherences, but too much coffee and too little sleep prevent me from doing being more concise.